I 

0A^«-°^°' 




pemnM,if6» 
pH8^ 



E 449 
.B92 

Copy 1 



THE SLAVERY aCESTION. 



NO. I. 

Our readers are aware that for many years we have been engaged in a .sort oJ 
desuhory warfare with the fanatical abolitionists of the North. We have, liowever, 
never meddled with iSlavery as a poUtical qtiestion. What we have written upon the 
subject has been, mainly, designed to expose the fallacy of the f-chenies of aboli- 
tionists, the deleterious tendency of their principles and policy upon the religious 
organizations of the country, and the interests of religion in general; and, as far as • 
possible, to arrest its progress and counteract its pernicious effects upon the unity 
and fellowship of the churches, the harmouy of the people, and the stability of the 
government. But though we have written much in a desultory and controversial 
way upon the principles and policy of modem abolitionists, Ave have never given 
our views upon the question of slavery, abstractly, considered, either in a religious 
or political point of view^. 

So long as the discussion of the question was confined to its ethical bearings, we 
regarded it as, peculiarly belonging to the religious press; and we therefore felt it our 
duty^fo speak Oiit whenever we thought the cause of truth would be s'iibsisrved by 
so doing. But since the question has been made a purely political one in this 
State, we resolved to surrender it, at least for the present, to the political press, 
and hence our silence, in regard to it, for months past. 

We have been induced to adopt this course of leservedness, not from any un- 
willingness that our fiews should be known, but because, in the first place, we 
^have an utter repugnance to introducing political matters into our columns in any 
shape or way; and in the second place, because, having hitherto exerted ad our 
influence to observe and perpetuate the peace of the Churches, by resisting the 
introduction and influence of abolitionism among them, we have felt resolved that, 
now that it has been thrust u[.on them as a poHtical question, if the peace and har- 
mony of the churqhes is disturbed thereby, the Banner shall not be charged as 
having contributed to a result so much to be deprecated. 

While these motives have hitherto control ed us, and we trust will «;till control u.«, 
we candidly confess that we have not been able to satisfy our mind whether a -er- 
fect silence, upon our part, in regard to the matter, was either compatible with our 
duty, as editor gf the denominational paper of the State, or best calculated to pro- 
mote and preserve the unity and peace of the churches. Our brethren ever}' where, 
as members of the civil compact, will be called to act in reference to, and decide 
upon the question politically, and their views of it, in a religious point of light, will 
necessarily have paramount control over their action as members of the body politic. 
They must act, and the presumption is they will be somewhat divided upon the 
question; but we trust that no difference of opinion, as politicians, will be sufiered 
to disturb their relations as church members. The subject, as a controversial one, 
should not be introduced, either into the columns of your paper, the churches, or 
among church members, as such. 

It is therefore, not a matter of question with us, whether the slavery question, as 
it is now before the people of Kentucky, should be discussed through the columns 
of the Banner or not; upon that point our mind is fully made up : but the question ' 



/ 



i> whether a brief statement of our viervs upon the subject, in its rehgious anil civil 
iispccts, abstractly considered, nii^ht not promote harmony and concord among the 
members of our churches; and whether, occupying the position, we do, it is our duty 
to lay our views before our brethren and tlie public, before they act finally upon 
this iinportaftt question. 

The subject is one of great moment in its moral, social and political bearings, 
• nsidered either in reference to the slaves, their owners, or the country; and those 
who have the power and who are about to be called upon to decide upon this ques- 
tion, so far as the interests of the parties in this commonwealth are concerned, should 
calmly and dispassionately investigate it in all its bearings, so that when they come 
to act they may be prepared to act conscientiously and mtelligently, and have no. 
occasion to repent of their action wlien it is too late to undo it. 

Now we apprehend that there are thousands, even among our church members 
in this commonwealth, who, while they have fixed in their minds ho'.vthey will vote 
upon the sul>ject, have never given it the calm and thorough investigation which it 
merits, and which it is necessary they should do in order to a faithful discharge of 
their duty as Christians and good citizens. I'heir present determinations may be 
honestly intended, but they may nevertheless result from political preferences, 
fr..>m early prejudices, or the local influences which persons and circumstances 
around them have exerted upon them, while the merits of the question have occu- 
pied no part of their thoughts. 

Various persons have urged it upon us, as a duty which we owed to the public, to 
come out and let our views be known, but for the reasons above stated, we have 
declined doing .so. It has, however, occurred to us that a mere statement of our 
views, as the result of our investigations of the abstract question of slavery^ both 
in its religious and civil aspects; and a brief statement of the reasons which have 
and will govern us in the exercise of our civil franchise, in reference to the ques- 
tion, as ii is now presented to the people of Kentucky, would not necessarily open 
the columns of the Banner for the discussion of the subject; while such an expose 
of our views might do good by exciting others to a more thorough investigation of 
the subject than they otherwise would do. 

Under the influence of these considerations, and in persuance of the advice and 
opinion of others, we have consented to prepare a series of articles, stating as briefly 
as possible, our views of the several matters involved in the question of slavery, as 
it is now before the people of this commonwealth; and we offer this as the first 
number of the series. 



NO. II. 
The will of God, as revealed in the Scriptures of divine truth, is, with us, para 
mount law in matters of morals. What is proved as morally right, by this law, no 
tinitf; being should dare impeach. And on the other hand, that which is condemn 
ed by this law as morally wrong, no finite being should dare attempt to justify or 
defend. If, therefore, we would arrive at just conclusions in regard to the moral 
rjujil'tv of any action or thing, we must cnndidly and ingenuously .search the Scrip- 
tuns tor information ir regard for it; resolved to receive its instructions and abide its 
decisions, avoiding all attempts to pervet its language or to misconstrue its plain 
import. Nrj man can, in the irue sense of the term, believe the Scriptures to be 
the Word of (Jod who, to maintain his peculiar views, is driven to the necessity of 
(}uibbling upon its verbiage, with a view to force it from its obvious meaning to sub- 
.scrve his purptjse. Such a course of j)rocedure by whomsoever resorted to, we look 
upon as inli(klily, made more infidel by professing to believe what is at the same 
time denied. 



With these views of the suflicioncy and authority of (lie .'-•liij.t.ir. - in d. ,v,. :,.. 
ingall questions of morahty, wc of course appeal to them as thf; only aflc(}uato rule 
by which we can arrive at just conclusions in regard to the moral cjuaiities of slavery. 

Admitting, as we do, the imperfection of human uiiderptanding, wc readily admit. 
also, thrtt persons equally desirous to arrive at the truth, and equally candid and 
honest in the investigation of facts, reji-son?, &.c., involving any question, may come 
to very diflerent conclusions in regard lo it. All we ask, therefore, is that due cred- 
it be given us for candor and honesty, and that we be tolerated in the exercise of our 
opinions to the same generous extent that we recognise the right to exercise freedom 
of opinion in others. 

As the first commandment in the first table of the Moral Law, as defined by 
Christ, is the '^cklef commandment" of the decalogue and pervades all the .est, so 
the first commandment of the second table is the "chief commandment" of that 
section of the decalogue, and pervades all the other commandments of that table. — 
While the obligation to love God supremely, prevads all our relations, both to God 
and men, the obligation to love our neighbor as ours .If prevades all the ralations 
Avhich we can possibly bear to one another in this life. 

These great pervading principles of the mo al code, arc, however, to be so un- 
derstood, a,s not only to harmonize most perfectly with each other, but with each 
and every other precept of the moral law. No interpretation, therefore, of either of 
these first principles of the moral law, which would interfere with the relations among 
men recognized by any other commandment in the decalogue, can be admitted as 
warranted by divine authority, or as calculated to promote the happiness of men. — 
There must be the most perfect harmony throughout all the precepts of the Divine Lair, 

Let this principle, therefore, be understood as pervading our whole theory, wheth-. 
er of domestic or national government: that God approves of that system of things 
which, under the circvmstances, is best calculated to promote the holiness and happi- 
ness of men; and that what God approves is morally right. . ' 

With this broad and comprehensive basis as a foundation, we proceed briefly to 
state our views; First: Of the nature and design of Human Governments. 

Had sin never been introduced into our world., no other law or system of govern- 
ment would have been required but that law which was incorporated in the nature 
of the p ire-moral-man, as he came from the hands of his Maker, and which law we 
now have embodied in the deccdogue. But when man fetl from his primitive huli- 
ness, and, with sin, all its sad and blighting conco i itants were introduced into our 
Avorld, God in His infinite mercy authorized the institution of human governments 
for the conrrol of mankind, and the bettering of their condition upon the earth. 

The great fundamental Principle which it was intended should pervade all human 
governments, in subordination to our obligations to the Divine Arbiter, was the mor- 
al /<«j9jy/«ess of ^Ae ^?//«au ybmiZy. In searching tlie divne record, therefore, we 
shall find that form of government which, imder the circumstances, was best calcu- 
lated to promote the moral and social haj)piness of the people, icas sanctioned and ap- 
proved by God. 

The first form of Government which we have any record of, is that which grew 
out of the paternal relation, and is denominated Patriachal. This form of govern- 
ment, though imbued with the spirit of the paternal relation, was nevertheless an abso- 
lute despotism. The will of the Patriach was the absolute law of his tribe; life 
and death were in his hands, and from his decision there was no appeal. The Pa- 
triarch exercised authority- over his tiibe as long as he lived, whatever might be the 
ages or circumstances of his descendants; unless where a head of a branch of the 
family moved beyond the bounds of the original Patriarchy; and in that case he 
became the patriarch of his own tribe. 

As tribes were multiplied upon the earth, a diversity of circumstances ensued. — 
Some grew more potent, some more feeble. A collision of interests, and conse- 
quently wars supervened. Tribes were broken up and families scattered, defence- 
less and exposed to the oppressions of the more powerful around them. In this con- 



ditiou of human affairs, slavery seems to have been introduced, as a system of ame- 
lioration and proctection to the helpless and oppressed. We have not time here 
to enter into ininutias as to what were the circumstances under which the first con- 
tract for a slave was made, nor is such an inquiry material to our present purpose. 
It appears upon record that, m process of time, whether from wars or other control- 
injT events, others beside the descendannts of the Patriarchs Avere incorporated into 
these Partriarchates. In the first place purchased, and in the second place born in 
the family. These servants, or slaves, wcre.evidently the property of those who 
had bought them or in whose fomilies they were born. This relation God evidently 
sanctioned, and in the case of the family of Abraham, provided for, by. special en- 
actment and covenant. So that the servants of Abraham, bought with his money 
and born in his house, were as directly incorporated, though without any change 
in their condition as servants, into the Abrahamic family, and was as much under 
obligation to recieve circumcision as was Isaac or any of his lineal descendants. To 
this subject we shall recur again in its proper place. 

A multitude of circumstances conspired to "introduce other systems of 'civil rule 
and authority, into which the various Patriarchates were ultimately \irgcd. The 
crude and unsystcmatised national organizations which immediately succeeded the 
Patriarchal age, were despotisms of the worst sort, being withont any other law 
than the will of a tyrant. Even these, however, j^fiforded an imperfect protection to 
their subjects, and especially where they were imbued with the paternal spirit of the 
Patriarchial form of Government. Almost any form of government, however, is 
preferable to a state of unbrieled anarchy. 

The Paternal Government is the from of government which by the fiat of our 
Maker is stapmed upon our nature, and is therefore best adapted to the necessities 
and interests of mankind. ISTot, however, in the form in which we have found it 
to exist in the patriachal age ; but thus. By the law of nature every father is vested 
with the government of his OAvn house-hold ; and as a necessary qualification to fit 
him for this high oihce, has impressed upon his nature as a husband and father, to- 
wards those under his government, so much of the spirit of the first commandment 
in the second table of the law, that he is by the spontaneous impulses of his heart 
inclined to love his wife and children as himself, and to protect and provide for them 
accordingly. It is clearly assumed, however, by the law of nature, or rather by the 
Great Founder of nature's law, that no man is competent to govern a fiimily who is 
not capable of self-government. Hence, while the son is in non-age, or for other reas- 
ons being incapable of self-government, he remains under the government of his 
father, and difters nothing from a servant. When, however, he sliall have acquired 
the requisite capabilities, he may colonize a family of his o^vn and assume the gov- 
ernment of it, iudependant of the restraints of his father. 

Now, we hold that whatever system of national government approaches nearest 
to the nature of the paternal government, (is best calculated to secure the great 
ends contemplated thereby,) is the best form of human government. That form of 
government is to be found in a National Compact of Fathers, morally and intel- 
lectually qualified for 'self -guvernment. Such a national compact of nature's sov- 
ereigns, controled by organic law, which they have all had a voice in establishing, 
whether in the form of a simple or representative democracy, is the most perfect sys- 
tem of national government known to enlightened man, and is best calculated to 
promote the great ends of his moral and social being. It must be understood, how- 
ever, tliai no individual, who from any cause is destitute of the requisite qvalificaiions 
fur self-government can, vpon any consideration of reason- or justice, claim a partici- 
yation in such a government. Such disqualified persons may be taken under the 
jn'oteclion of such a government, but cannot be made parties in it. 

If we look into the history of the past, Ave shall certainly find that in proporition 
as intellectual culture and moral light were difi'used among the masses, despotisms 
were weakened; nnil, vicee versa. Despots havi- always found it indispensible to 
the safety of their thrones, to partition out their power among their subjects in the 



emci proportion of their caiyahUUles for srlf-r/overnmenl. Hence, we find that as 
nations have advanced in moral and intellectual culture, the government of those 
nations have changed from absolute despotisms to monarchies, ragrc or less Jimited, 
and thence to Republics. 

Now, we feel authorized, from the inspired history of the past, to say that God, 
in all ages of the world, has intimated his preference for that system of government, 
which, compared with its contemporaries, most nearly approached to the modle 
above described; and the reason, to us, is obvious — because, best calculated to pro- 
mote the beneficent ends contemplated in the second tafte of the decalogue, concern- 
ing the human family. 

As a proof that the above is not mere theory or bare opinion, we beg leave to 
present a brief analysis of the first organized government m the world : 

When God called Israel from the land of Egypt to the possession of the land given 
in covenant^ to them as the seed of Abraham; he assumed the paternal right to gov 
ern them himself, and appointed Moses to be his special minister of state. Through 
Moses he gave to Israel the first system of organic national law the world ever saw ; 
and constituted them into a government composed of twelve Patriarchates, with a 
representative assembly of seventy elders. Here we have not only the first model 
of an organized national assembly, but also the first model of a representative gov- 
ernment; and this organization was upon the paternal basis. It Avill be seen, how- 
ever, that the individual pnternity of Israel (i. e. the lathers of families as individuals) 
were not at this time, either intellectually or morally capable of S(.'lf-governmcnt, and 
hence God assumed the paternal right to . legislate for them Himself; hut at the 
same time He gave us a bright example of what a representative government, upon 
the paternal basis, should be, by partitioning out the administration of the law, 
which He had established, into the hands of seventy elders, chosen from among the 
people. 

The Theocracy of Israel, as originally constituted, was, when viewed simply as a 
human organization, a Republic of Fathers. And it is remarkable, that so Igibly 
were the peculiarities of the paternal form of government impressed upon their pre- 
ceptions and national organtzation, that their rulers were distinguished by the title of 
"Elders of Israel-" 

As a further proof that the principles which we have laid down is not unfounded 
speculation and mere theo'ry, by a further inquiry into the history of Israel, we shall 
find that Avhen subsequently the children of Israel had degenerated in their moral 
and intellectual capabilities, by contact with the surrounding idolitrous nations, and 
were less qualified for self-government, God instituted a monarchy, for the govern- 
ment of those who were not capable of governing themselves. The Israelitish mon- 
archy was, however, a limited one, not only because the law established by divinr 
authority was unalterable and governed the throne ilseif, but also because the orig- 
inal representative form, was preserved in the perpetuation of the shanhedrim. 

From this brief and imperfect survey of the past, the reader may gather what 
our views are of the moral nature and design of human governments; or what the 
divine beneficence intended to promote by their organization. He will also perceive 
how, according to our views, the divine sanction could be given to certain forms of 
government which, as we suppose, were not so perfect as they might be, and which 
under other circumstances He would not have sanctioned: thus, had Israel been 
capable of self-government, it is evident from the history of the times, God would 
not have established a monarchy in Israel. But as to have left them to themselves 
in their then condition, would have been virtually to have shut them up to anarchv 
and ultimate destruction, a system of government, better suited to their then condi- 
tion and necessities, was instituted for their good, and special preservation. 

In the kingdom of Israel, by special enactment of God, slavery was instituted 
and provided for ; which never could have been the case if it necessarily rendered 
the condition of the salvQ worse than it othen\'ise would have been, and still more 



i'>ssibk' would it ha vo boon for God to have given his sanction to it, if it were 
sin in the abstracl. 

We have deemQd the foregoing disquisition upon the nature and design of human 
governments, indispensable to an enliglitened and Scriptural enquiry into the moral 
nature of slavery; to the consideration of Avhich our next number will be • devoted. 

We are aware that our views of the subject under consideration, are somewhat 
novel; or, rather, that we are presenting the subject in a new point of Hght; and it 
may be well for us to request our readers to suspend a decision upon the propriety 
and fitness of the positions t^en until we are fully heard. 



/ 
NO. III. 

h will be understood, from what we said in our former number upon the 
'•moral nature and design of Human Governments," that we assume that the 
following positions have been established: 

First. That God has beneficient and gracious designs to be accomplished in 
behalf of the human family. 

Seco7idIy. That in accomplishing these designs, God is pleased to employ 
human instrumentalities: and that Human Governments are among the instru- 
mentalities instituted and employed for this end. 

Thirdly. That it is perfectly consistent wiih the infinite wisdom and purity 
of the Divine nature, and perfectly cotnpatible with the nature and aim of the 
Divine intention, not only to allow, but, by his immediate authority, to institute 
and establish such social and civil relations and such forms of government as, 
under the circumstances then existing, are best calculated, in the estimatian 
of infinite wisdom, to promote his beneficient and gracious designs in behalf of 
our lapsed and degenerate world. 

Fourthly. That those forms of Government which are more pei-fect in their 
nature, and are the best calculated to promote the happiness of a morally refined 
and enlightened people, are far from being the bost adapted to subserve the 
benevolent ends of the Divine intention in all conditions of human society. 
But that an absolute despotism, in the hands of an enlightened and benevolent 
Prince, is altogether better adapted to meet the wants and secure the safety and 
happiness of unenlightened barbarians than are ihe most liberal and enlightened 
forms of government. And hence the reason, the benevolence and the moral 
justice of the Divine procedure in the premises. 

We have seen also that the relations of master and slave were recognized and 
provided for in those forms of government which were, at that time, the most 
enlightened, liberal and best adapted to promote the happiness of men, and 
most favorable to the benevolent intentions of God towards them: and that 
God, by special covenant and enactment of law, ratified and sanctioned that re- 
lation. We now proceed to enquire more particularly into the details of that 
relation as recognized and tolerated by God, and to compare it and contrast it 
with the slavery of this country. 

We commence the enquiry by a brief investigation of the facts developed is 
the history of the Abrahamic family touching the subject under consideration. 
Were we disposed to inquire into the probable circumstances under which the 
servants bought by Abraham were first brought into bondage, as hinted in our 
former number, the multiplication of tribes and their opposing interests giving 
rise to wars and conflicts among them, as in the case of the herdsmen of Abra- 
ham and Lot; the impoverished and unprotected condition of feeble tribes and 
issolated families, &c., &c., would afford an ample field for speculation; but 
there is no necessity for any speculation where we have facts altogether suffi. 
cient for our purpose. 



The fact is fully confirmed lint Abraham owned servants, or slaves, (for they 
were slaves in lh>i full sense of the term) some of which were bought with his 
money and some were born in his h-mse. It must bo evident to every believer 
in the Scriptures, that a. man so pre eminent for pliJty, as was Abraham; a man 
so elevated in moral excellence and virtue, as to b^ called the Friend of God, 
and so pre-eminently distinguished by God as to be made the Covenantee in the 
great scheme of redemption, would not, in the first, place, have purchased a 
slave, had ihe act been sinful, much less would he have lived in tlie habitual 
practice of that sin for so long a time. It will not do to attempt lo escape from 
the admission that Abraham was a slaveholder by an infidel quibble upon the 
import of the -original term, rendered "servants" in our version, for the special- 
ities in the inspired record concerning them prove beyond nil possible refutation 
that they were verily slaves in the very sense in which that term is understood 
in our language. In addition to all the other conclusive proofs of this fiict, the 
peculiar relations which they are made to sustain, in the covenant which God 
made with him, places the matter beyond cavil. By that instrument, the lineal 
relation of the slave, is blotted out, and he is identified with the family of Abra- 
ham forever — hut as a slaee. The covenant binds Abraham to circumcise his ' 
slaves, whether bought with his money or born in his house, just as absolutely 
as it binds him to circumcise his own sons. Thus distinguishing between the 
hired servant and the bought slave so definitively that the distinction cannot be 
misunderstood. 

Now we maintain that God appoved o?, and by solemn covenant and compact 
with Abraham, ratified and confirmed the relation of master and slave which 
subsisted between him and those servants, bought with his money and born in 
his house, forever; and in this posiiton we are amply sustained, not only by the 
covenant itself, but by the testimony of Abraham's fhief servant, who testified 
to Laban and Bethuel, that the "Lord had given to his master man-servants and 
maid-servants.^'' 

It seems to us, therefore, that it would be the height of impiety to challenge 
the Divine procedure in this transaction, or to institute a doubt that the relation 
subsisting between Abraham and his servants was not perfectly consistent with 
the moral perfections of the Deity. 

But as a further manifestation of the Divine approbation of the relation refer- 
red to, we refer the reader to the case of the absconding Hagar. In this case 
God sent a special messenger from heaven to command Hagar to return to her 
mistress, and submit herself, unconditionally, "under her hand." This case of 
Hagar's does not only furnish unequivocal proof that God approved of the rela- 
tion that subsisted between Hagar and her mistress, but it also furnishes a beau- 
tiful and striking illustration of the principle laid down in our former article, 
"that good approves of that system of things which, under the circumstances, 
is best calculated to promote the holiness and happiness of man." For that the 
good of Hagar and her posterity was contemplated in the mission of the Angel, 
and not the profit or special happiness of either Abraham or Sarai, is most cer- 
tain from the declaration of the Angel, as well as from the subsequent history 
of Hagar and her son Ishmael. 

The foregoing facts, it would seem, would be qnite sufiicient to satisfy the 
mind of any honest inquirer after truth, that God had approved of the relation 
of master and slave; but we have still another fact, if possible still more con- 
clusive, that God has affixed his seal to the relation as one founded upon prin- 
ciples which lie at the very foundation of his moral government. 

The dec .logue is regarded, by all who recognise the Bible as the word of God, 
as the fundamental law of God's moral rule among men. Yea, divines have 
affirmed it to be "a transcript of the moral perfections of Deity." And yet it is 
true, that the relation subsisting between the master and the slave is not only 



10 

recognised, Lut interwoven into the very texture and nature of that fundamen- 
tal law — that moral transcript of the perfections of the Deity. We may endea- 
vor to escape from the force of this testimony by carping upon the translation 
of the word, but it can avail us nothing, for no quibble of this sort can turn 
aside or e\ adi the fact that the law itself places the man-servant and the maid- 
servant precisely \n the same relation to their master, as articles of property, that 
it does his ox, his ass and other possessions. 

Here, then, we pause for a moment, that we may turn the attention of the 
reader back to what we said in the forepart of the preceding article, upon the 
unity of the precepts of the divine law; because we wish to lead him to such a 
conception of the moral nature of the slavery which God approves as will be 
understood by such an exposition of the tenth commandment in the decalogue, as 
we have just given, and such an exposition of what the Saviour denominates "the 
second'' groat commandment, i. e., "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," 
as that they shall appear to harmonize i.iost perfectly and absolutely. Let this 
be done and you have "slavery in the abstract" — the slavery recognized in the 
Abrahamic covenant, which was approved of God and incorporated in the dec- 
alogue. 

Slavery, as thus defined, was incorporated into the Mosaic law, by divine 
authority, and recognised by our Saviour and his Apostles: and we now proceed 
to show by a brief examination of the Mosaic law, and the history of the times, 
that the slavery of the Scriptures was conceived in divine benevolence, and in- 
tended, mainly, to secure the happiness of the slave — to preserve life — to afford 
protection and to furnish the means of moral culture, to those who would other- 
wise have been destitute of one or all of these great blessings. Slavery was 
never intended by God to minister to the cupidity and luxury of the master with- 
out an adequate, and even more than an adequate return of good to the slave. 
Its principle design was., hentvohnce to the poor and defenceless, and religious in- 
struction to Idoliters, Sfc: and this we hope to moke appear. 

For the proof of the position which we have assumed above, we shall confine 
ourselves to the divine record. The patriarchal age affords a vast field for con- 
jecture and theory in support of our position, and poets might revel in its fertili- 
ty of themes for the muses in our support, but we propose to deal in facts alone, 
and we shall refer to but one other fact, in the family of Abraham, in proof of 
our position, in additton to the Divine benevolence in behalf of Abraham's 
slaves in the covenant provisions made for them, and the obvious intentions of 
God in the case of Hagar. -For in both these cases it is obvious that God in- 
tended specially to benefit the slaves and not Abraham. The other case to which 
we allude is, (hat Abraham regarded it as a natural consequence of his dying 
childless that his slave (for such a result could not have occurred with the child 
of a hired man) born in his house should be his heir. This fact speaks vol- 
umes: for from whatever source the law eminated that governed Abraham, this 
declaration of his is a fair exposition of it. 

We proceed, however, to examine the law of Moses, and the history of the 
times it cover??, for the proofs and illustrations of our position, as assumed above, 
in regard to slavery. 

Our readfers are all aware that the land of Canaan was inhabited by a num- 
ber of Tribes, or petty Kingdoms, the descendants of Ham, who had snnken 
into the grossest Idolitry, and that it was surrounded by nations of a similar 
character. Those tribes inhabiting the promised land, God appointed to ex- 
termination, by the hands of Israel; not merely to make room for his chosen 
people, but as a judicial punishment for their Idolitry, (as in the cases of the 
antidcluvians and the cities of the Plain;) and to preserve Israel from the con- 
tamination of tlicir example and influence. And where remnants of these tribes 
were suffered to live, God assigned them to perpetual slavery in Israel. 



That tlie reducing of the Gibionites to slavery in Israel was a moasure of Di- 
vine clemency, will appear from the following considerations. Though by cir- 
cumventing the Elders of Israel, they had escaped the death to which God had 
appointed them, yet the fact of their having deserted the common cause of the 
Idoliters around them, against Israel, those nations had resolved upon their ex- 
termination, so that no alternative was left, seeing that by the covenant with 
Abraham, they could not be free nor hold estates in Canaan, they must be slaves 
in Israel; or, being driven out, perish bv the hands of their enemies. More- 
over, as .slaves in the house of Lsrael, they were brought under the religion of 
the true God, and the provisions of the Abrahamic covenant, as set forth above. 
Slavery, under such circumstances, instead of death, was mercy divine. In re- 
gard to the heathen nations roundabout, of whom the Israelites were authorizen 
to buy bond-men and bond-women, it is to be remarked that the heathen man 
or woman thus purchased, was not thereby made a slave; but being already a 
slave with the heathen, he or she might be purchased, as such, by an Israelite 
and retained in perpetual bondage. As to how they became slaves among the 
heathen it is no part of our business to settle. . The fact that they were slaves 
in the possession of cruel^ rapacious ajid blood-thirsty Idoliters, seems to have 
been a sufHcieut reason with the Divine law-giver, (at least we so understood 
it,) as lo authorize the children of Israel to rescue such slaves from a condition 
so deplorable in its social and moral tendencies and results, that they might be 
brought under the influence of the religion of the true God; controled, protect- 
ed and provided for by masters whose hearts and lives were swayed by the law 
of the living God; and who recognised their accountability to him for their con- 
duct to their fellow mei^. That such a change was unspeakably more beneficial 
to the slave than the master, it seems to us, no reasoniible person can doubt. 
Now, in addition to what we have said above, if this provision of the Mosaic law 
is understood as providing the means of propagating a knowledge of the true 
God and of arresting the progress of Idolitry, it seems to us that we must admit 
that such slavery is perfectly compatible with the moral law. We call the at- 
tention of our readers to the following passages of Scripture, not only as spe- 
cifically settinjT forth the benevolent spirit and intention of the Mosaic law, (and 
also of the Abrahamic covenant,) in reference to the institution of slavery; but 
also as marking a distinction between the hired servayits and the bond servants, 
which no sophistry can confound or pervert. Touching the Paschal Lamb, God 
says to Moses: Ex. xii: 44-45: "But every man's servant that is bought for 
money, when thou hast circumcised him. then shall he eat thereof .A foreigner 
and a hired servant shall not eat tliereof." 

Concerning eating of the Holy things in the Priest's house, God says to 
Closes: Leviticus xxii: 10-11: "There shall no stranger eat of the Holy things: 
a sojourner of the priest, or a hired servant, shall not eat of the Holy things. 
But if the priest buy any soul with his money, he shall eat of it, and he that is 
born in his house; they shall eat of his meat." 

We shall refer but to one other feature in the Masaic law, concerning slavery, 
in illustratton of the benevolence of its provisions, and then pass on. We mean 
that section of the law which provides for the enslaving of an Israelite, it is 
evident that the special benefit of the poor Israelite is the immediate object con- 
templated in this provision of the law. He that knows the hearts of all men, 
understood perfectly that there is such an utter deficiency of benevolence in the 
hearts of the rich, ordinarily, that the poor of his people would often suffer (as 
they do in this christian land) unless it was in some way made the interest of 
the rich to provide for them and to protect them against their oppressors. And 
hence he allowed the rich to buy the poor, that they might be provided for in a 
better way than they could do for themselves. An Israelite, however, if able 
to own it could hold estates in Canaan. There was no necessity of retaining 



12 

him in perpetual bondapre in order to bring^ hinn under the influence of the true 
rehgion. on the one hand, or to prevent him from returning to Idolitry on the 
other. Hence God limited his service to seven yearsj at the end of which time 
he rould claim his freedom in defi ince of his master. 

But mnik, now, the peculiarities of the law. After the purchase has been 
made, nothing more is optional with the master. The slave can claim his free-" 
dom at the expiration of seven years, in defiance of the master. But if the 
slave at the expiration of the time should find himFclf unable, either from age, 
infirmities or anything else, to provide for himself, he has only to say: "I love 
my master," and am not willing to leave him; and the master has no choice 
left — he is bound {0 take him to the door-post, bore his ear with an awl and keep 
him, provide for him and protect him as his slave for life. All the provisions 
of this section of the Mosaic law, go to show that it was intended as a system 
of supply, comfort and protection to the poor in Israel by making it the interest 
of (he rich to become their benefactors for the time being. 

From what we have seen, we may fairly conclude that slavery, as a system 
of sociiil and political relations between man and jnan, was intended for good, 
but like almost every other divine providence intended for the amelioration of 
the sin-mined race of Adam, it is liable to be perverted, and often has been and 
still is made the occasion of most flagrant and appaling violations of the Divine 
Lpw. Rut the consideration of this departnaent of our subject we must defer 
for our next. 



NO. IV. 

Having, as we think, clearly demonstrated, in our preceding article, that the 
relation between the master and the slave has received the Divine sanction and 
ratification, as a system of social benevolence, by which the master is secured 
in a reasonable reward for his trouble and outlay, and the s'ave delivered from 
abandonment and suffering — it may be proper for us to lay before the reader a 
hw facts and reasons to show that such a system of slavery, as we have shown 
that to be which God has approved, is calculated to work out in society the 
beneficial results which we have assumed God intended it should. 

We wish our readers distinctly to understand that we admit that the institution 
of slavery, through the cupidity and rapaciousness of wicked men, has been 
awfully perverted and abused. That it has been the occasion of enormous and 
crying sins by both master and slave; and that we do not appear as the apologist, 
much less as the defender of any perversion or abuse of the institution — we de- 
fend it no farther than we believe God has approved it. We are, however, far 
from admitting that slavery is sin iti itself because wicked men have sinned, as 
masters and slaves. Subject any institution, even the most sacred, to such an 
ordeal, and it must inevitably fall. The institution of civil Government, of mar- 
riage, of the Gosp>?l ministry must all he condemned and abandoned if such a 
process of trial and judgement are to be adopted; and anarchy, and barbarism, 
and infidf'lity must reign over those fair portions of our earth where civil order, 
domesiio f. licity and the christian's hope conspire to alleviate the sorrows of 
life, and ji^rdi „p [\^q pilgrim's path to a better land. Sin has perverted every 
good, and it is not to be wondered at that the institution of slavery has sliared 
with the rest. It is true that the imperfect annals of the times of Abraham and 
of the nation of Israel, from the death of Joshua to the time of Jereboam, aflford 
us but imperfect data as to the practical operation of the system of slavery, as 
instituted among them. This we know, however — that no record of vioknce o- 
of destitution is found in the history of Abrahaios' family; nor have we ar 



13 

record of a poor-house, an alms-house, nor of a solitary heggar in the annuls of 
Israel, 'i'heir poor were all provided for by tlie institution of domestic servitude. 

Even in the present day, where slavery prevails among enlightened nations, 
notwithstanding the gross perversion aTiid abuse of the institution, we shall find 
less destitution and suffering than in similar enlightened nations where slavery 
does not exist. As proof of this, let us, in the first place, compare the kingdom 
of Great Britain with the empire of Russia. Great Britain has the advantage of 
Russia in all the ordinary resources of human happiness. Her Goverimient is 
more liberal, her climate and soil are superior, her religious and literary institu- 
tions are also superior to those of Russia, and yet it will not be denied ihut the 
poor of England are more numerous and more abject than those of Russia; and 
that the amount of human suflering from poverty and oppression in England is 
immeasurably greater than it is in Russia. 

And if we take our own country as an example, and compare the proportion- 
ate number and the comparative destitution of the poor in the non-slavelio Iding 
States with those of the slaveholding States, it will be found that the proportion of 
poor, to the general population, is much larger in the free than in the slave 
States; and that, there is a much greater amount of sulFering (rom poverty and 
destitution in the former than in the latter States. 

Now the reasons for these results are, to our mind, perfectly obvious. In all 
ages and countries, those who are in affluence and power have oppressed the 
hapless and poor, and will continue to do so, so long as the selfishness of de- 
praved human nature remains what it is; unless, by some benevolent arravgeme?2(, 
the interests of the poor and helpless are indentified with the interests of the powerful 
and wealthy. And such an institution is slavery, based upon the principles which 
we find it to be in the Scriptures. If we suppose the master to be governed by 
those ennobling and benevolent principles which the law of the Lord inspires, 
then does the slave find in him such a IViend, guardian and defender as the poor 
and the destitute will find but seldom any where else. And if the slave is gov- 
erned by the same law, the confidence of the parties will be mutual, and recip- 
rocal benefits will result from the relation. Such we suppose to have been the 
moral character of slavery as ratified by the Abrahamic covenant, recognised in 
the Decalogue, and incorporated in the Law of Moses; and which, so far from 
being sinful, we can but regard as a wise provision of the Father of Mercies, to 
secure the poor against the rapacity and oppression of the rich. 

Fallen as we are, and cursed as the earth is for our sakes, God has supplied 
every clime and country with abundant resources for the subsistence and happi- 
ness of its inhabitants. And the only reason why the poor in any country, are 
subjected to squalid wretchedness, misery and starvation, are the two following: 
First — the "chief commandment" of the second table of the Law has been so 
entirely effaced from our natures by the fall, that man has lost his sympathies 
for his fellow man, and instead of the law of love, all dominant selfishness rules 
in his heart. Hence, the rich are utterly incapable of sympathising with the poor. 
Secondly — no provisions are made in the civil institutions of those countries to recon- 
cile and harmonize the interests of the rich with the safety and happinesa of the 
poor; but on the contrary, their interests arc niadc antagonistic to each other. The 
rich have not only all the civil power in the land, and therefore nde the poor, but 
they have also all the means of comfort in their possession; and being inflaeuced by 
the law of selfishness, they oppress the poor, and grind them into the dust. The 
only means for subsistence which the poor have is tlieir labor ; but the rich have the 
control, not only of the amount of labor to be performed, but of the wages to be paid 
for it; and the result is, that such unreasonable exactions are made upon the time 
and energies of the poor, even in christian countries, that at the low wages afforded 
them, and the high prices which they are compelled to pay for food, thousands are 
starving for bread while there is an abundance around them; because, though they 



14 

labor sixteen hours out of the twenty-four, Ihey are not able to supply themselves 
with bread. This is true, not only in those old countries where despotisms reign, 
and the land seems to be overstocked with inhabitants but is true also in our own 
country, (^specially in the populous cities oTthe East. 

Now we maintain that .such a system of servitude as that which was established 
in Israel, by which the health and hapjjiness of the servant was identitied with the 
hUn-csts of (he master, would obviate all this evil. Take Ireland for an example, 
and suppose the Government had so provided that, instead of an oppressed and im- 
poverished tenantry, subjected to the rapacity and heartless exactions of overgrown 
landlords, the poo/of the country could have' sold themselves for a given period to 
the wealthy, so as to make it theduty and the interest of the wealthy to provide for 
the health and subsistence of the slave; who does not see that the immense stores of 
provisions in the jiossession of the rich would have been every where unlocked, and 
the oppres.se d millions of that devoted land have been delivered from a slavery infi- 
nitely more degrading, and from wretchedness, starvation and death? As a further 
illusti-ation of what we mean, notwithstanding all that may be regarded as wrong 
in the slaverv of this country, let us suppose that famine should visit any portion of 
the South, even beyond what it is in Ireland — is there any individual, even the most 
violent opposer of slavery, who believes that there is a master in the land, who 
would not only share with his servants the last bushel of meal in his possession, 
but would not sell every thing lie owned, in order to buy food for them, rather than 
tlieir little ones .should cry for bread, much less that any should starve for the want o^it? 
Before we dismiss thispartof our subject, we beg leave to introduce a case which 
occurred not long'since in the city of New York, as a practical illustration of the 
views we have just given. The case is thus stated by Maj. Noah, in his New York 
Sunday Messenger: 

' 'Here at the North the poor blacks are not permitted to work alongside the 
white man. Once they were permitted to follow the humble employment of carry- 
ing up bricks and mortar but they were kicked from the ladder by our white fellow- 
citizens. They clean boots, scour clothes, but are not permitted to sweep streets — 
and yet we, who persecute, neglect and repudiate the free black man here, are filled 
witli holy zeal to make the slave free at the South, and depriA^e him of a home, of 
food and of clothing, and of a kind, considerate master; and we struggle for that 
freedom even at the expense of breaking down, dividing and destroying our glorious 
Republic! Suppose all the slave States were to say to their free blacks — "My 
friends, we have given to you employment, but your abolition friends are anxious 
that you should come forth from the iniquity that surrounds you — go to them, and 
.see if they will do as much for you as we have done!'' What is to become of more 
than half a million of freed blacks driven forth to seek the cold charity of the North? 
They will starve! 

Wherever we turn, we see nothing in the agitation of the slave question but ruin 
and distress to the colored race! 

A circumstance accurred here last week, which has led to the foregoing reflec- 
tions. Passing down Nassau street, three or four persons were standing inside of a 
store talking to a black man, and they invited us to come in. "Here is a black man," 
said one of the gentlemen, "who wishes to sell himself as a slave for ^150." 

We entered the .store, and saw a short stout fellow in rags, with good countenance, 
and no indication of vice. 

"Wliere do you belong?" 

"To Ni;w York; I was born there." 

"Don't you know that you can't sell yourself as a slave in this State." 

"What am I to do? I can get no work. I have had no breakfast; I am almost 
naked ; no one cares for me, and I have no friends. Is it not better to have a good 
master whom J can Avork for, and who Avill care for me?" 

Here was an illustration of the practical benevolence of domestic African slavery, 
while it exhibited the rank hypocrisy of the Abolitionists. They would raise two 



16 

readers to a few prominent features in its history, in order to such an analysis of it 
as will enable us to compare and contrast it with the slavery of the Scriptures, that 
thereby we may be able to decide upon it as a question of causistry. In order to 
arrive at just conclusions in regard to the enslaved condition of Africans in this 
country, it is indispensibly necessary that we should ascertain what tlicir condition 
was in Africa, before they were brought here. And as our object is siinj)ly to give 
our views, eschewing controversy, we shall state only facts, as generaJly admitted. 
It is admitted on all hands, that Africa, from time inimemoiial, has hen inhabited 
by a population the most degraded, ignorant, barbarous and cruel of any other 
quarter of the world. That they were pagan idolators, enveloped in the thickest 
moral darkness with which sin had cursed the earth, and which hat! ellectually 
resisted all attempts to introduce the light of Truth into that benighted hind; that 
they were cut up into clans, factition and petty nations, headen by chiefs, the most 
rapacious and cruel, whose chief business was war, and who.se chief traflic censisted 
in their captives, who were destined for sale, for sacrifices to their idols, or to feast 
their own cannibal appetites upon. Such was the condition of Africa, before slavery 
was introduced into this country, and such is still the condition of those tribes, or 
clans, which supply the slave trade at present. No African is made a slave by 
coming to this country — they are slaves in their own country when purchased for 
market in ti'is; and it must not be overlooked that African slaves are made so by 
their own implied coftsent. For, according to ihe international laws by whic'i those 
clans are governed, every one who goes to war for reprisals, virtually consents to 
become a slave if conquered; so that they should not complain. 

While it is true that slavery, such as alluded to above, existed in Africa long be 
fore it was introduced into this country, yet it is due to truth to say, that in all prob- 
abiltty, the extensive and ready sale for their captives to the traders from this coun- 
try, has greatly increased bloody and brutal wars amongst them. But with this 
admission, it cannot be denied that the condition of the African slaves in this country, 
both physically and morally, is an intinitely better one than is the condition of the 
free popula ion of their several tribes in Africa, to say nothing of the condition of 
their slaves. To say nothing of our hopes for them in the future, but considering 
ihem as they now are, and every enlightened and candid mind must perceive that 
they have been greatly benefitted by the change. If it be admitted, as we suppose it 
must be, that the African slaves in America, as a whole, are greatly better off than 
they could possibly be in their own degraded native State; then it must be admitted, 
also, that in one important feature, American slavery assimilates with what we have 
.seen to be an important constituent of the slavery recognized in the scriptures — 
effiecting the good of the enslaved. 

Let it now be recollected what was said above of the seveaal constituents of every 
moral action, and in view of the rules there laid down, let us inquire inio the several 
motives which could possibly have influenced those who first purchased such an 
african slave, as we have found those to be in Africa, for service in this country; for 
the motive in the action, determines the moral quality of the act, so far as the actor 
is concerned. To state the question in as practical a shape as possible, we will sup- 
pose that there were three distinct classes of original purchasers, all influenced by 
different motives, and that these three classes of purchasers are the representatives 
of three distinct classes of slaveholders in this country at this time. These three classes 
of original purchasers, being in Africa, and beholding the physical, social and moral 
degradation of the native slaves, were all influenced, by what they saw, to purchase 
as many of these slavee as they possibly could, and transport them as slaves to this 
country for their own use. Though all were influenced by what they saw, to per- 
form the same act, abstractly cansidered, yet each class was influenced by distinptly 
different motives. For example — 

The first class are men wholly uninfluenced by moral or religious impulses, 
and measurably void of the ordinary sympathies of cultivated human nature, see 
nothing in the scenes around them to awaken either emotions of philanthropy or 



15 

thousand dollars to purcliase the liberty of two mulatto ghls, and yet allow a poor 
black to offer himself iis a slave to save himself from starving in a free Northern 
State." 

We have thus imperfectly sketched out what we conceive the slavery of the Bible 
to have been, morally and socially. We now propose to enquire into the constitu- 
ent elements of the slavery of this country and to compare it and contrast with that 
system of slavery which we conceive the scriptures to tolerate and warrant. Before 
we proceed, however, we lay down the following brief rules, as our guide in deter- 
mining the moral qualities of an action, and also in comparing one action with 
another: 

1st. An act to be morally right must be in conformity to a Divine law, of either 
a general or special application. But that intinite wisdom never gave a special law 
to conflict with a general law, neither can a special law abrogate or in any way 
impair one of a general nature 

2d. That all moral actions are constituted of three distinct, and, in some respects, 
separate specialities — the motive, the action itself, and the effect or tendency of the 
action. The motive determines the moral quality of the action so far as the actor is 
concerned; the abstract moral qimlity of the action is to be determined by specific 
moral law, or, in other Avords, the moral right of the actor to perform it, the moral 
effect or tendency of the action is to be judged of by its results, cither as good or evil. 
The motive may he good and approvable, and the action itself wrong, as in the inten- 
tion of Uzza to suppport the Ark; the motive may be wrong, and the action in itself 
a right one, as tn Isaac's blessing Jacob instead of his favorite son Esau. The 
motive and the action may both be wrong, and it may result in the greatest imagi- 
nable good, as ioithe selling of Joseph into Egypt by his brethren. 

3d. In comparing different actions, or the actions of different actors with each 
other, with a view to determine their comparative moral qualities, we apply the fore- 
going tests and decide accordingly. But where an action, in all its constituents, is 
evidently decided to be in conformity to the moral law, if another action be com- 
pared with it, with a view to ascertain its moral quahties, we will be justified in 
approving or disapproving the latter action to the extent that it may be found to 
agree or disagree with the approved action. In deciding, therefore, upon the relative 
moral qualities of the slavery in this country when compared with the slavery of 
the Scriptures, we shall proceed according to the foregoing rules^ 

There is one feature in the Mosaic law which authorizes the enslavement of the 
Gibeonites and its confederate cities, to which Ave have barely alluded; nor do we 
intend now to do much more. It is evident, from the facts in the case, that their" 
enslavement was intended as punishment for their idolatries, God himself being the 
judge. The sentence of death had been pronounced upon them, but that sentence 
was commuted for slavery, in consequence of Ihe oath of the Elders of Israel. We 
name this fact, not only as forming an exception to the general view which we have 
given of the slavery of the- Scriptures, but also to call attention to the fact that, even 
under such circumstances, slavery was approved of God. 

In regard to the slavery of the Scriptures, we think Ave have already shown that 
it was a merciful a?id benevolent inslliution, tolerated and sanctioned by God, for the 
amelioration of the condition of the poor and unprotected, by Avhich the interests of 
the rich are secured in protecting and providing for the necessitous. 

That where the consent of the en.slaved has been, either directly or indirectly, 
given to his enslavement, he cannot complain of any injustice in his case; and that 
where his condition, physically and morrally, are bettered by it, he is the gainer by 
his enslavement; so that the master is guilty of no moral wrong, Avho makes the 
condilion of his slave better than it otherwise would have been. But, if he seeks to 
promote the happiness of his slaAC, and to advance him in moral and intellectual 
culture, he performs a charitable and belevolent act. 

A brief inquiry into the history of American slavery is all we have room for; but 
it is not necessary to our object to do more than barely call the attention of our 



17 

christian benevolence towards the degraded and suffering human hcings which ihcy 
contcmjilate. They were not influenced in the least by any humane or christian 
feeling; but seeing an opportunity to enrich themselves by purchasing these slaves at 
a low price, and entirely without reference to the good of tlie slave, resolve to pur- 
chase all they can that by their labors they may enrich themselves. Now, admitting 
that the purchaser intended no injury to the slave, and that the act of purchasing a 
slave is, as an abstract act, allowable; and allowing also that the condition of the 
slave, by the force of surrounding circumstances, should be improved by the change; 
still as the act was superinduced by motives wholly selfish and sordid, in the 
absence of "the law of love" — love cither to God or man, the actor is justly 
chargeable with moral wrong. Should however the condition of the slave not 
be improved by the purchase, and especially if it should be made worse, by 
the rapacity, injustice or cruelty of his master, then is the moral turpitude of his 
act increased, in tlie ratio of his disregard of the chief command of the second 
table of the decalogue. 

Now we maintain that that class of slaveholders, who are represented by the 
above class of purchasers, and who are influenced by similar motives, whether 
they have purchased or inherited their slaves, are in a like condemnation. They 
cannot plead the examples in the Scriptures in justification of their sordidness^ 
selfishness, injustice, cruelty and utter disregard of humanity and the law of God. 
God may, and we believe will, over-rule slavery, even in the hands of such 
moral monsters to his glory, in the social and moral elevation of the slaves, and 
the ultimate salvation of thousands, but his \rrath is kindled against the wicked 
and cruel masterj and he will be held strictly accountable for his disregard of 
his divine law. 

The second class of purchasers, we will suppose, were affected at the degrada- 
tion and suffering of the human beings before them, and believing that they 
could materially better their condition by bringing them to America and employ- 
ing them as slaves, under their own watch, care and supervision, without loss to 
themselves, from mere impulses of humanity — love to their neighbors — resolved 
to purchase all they could; and, in pursuance of their original purpose, hare 
continued to seek the improvement and well-being of their slaves. Here we 
suppose the motive to be such an one as the second table of the law warrants. — 
It was dictated by love for man, and, therefore, thus far, approved of God. This 
example we suppose to be strictly analogous to that system of slavery in the 
Mosaic Law, which tolerated the purchase of slaves from among the Gentiles; 
and which God intended to over-rule to the subversion of idolatry, and the 
extension of the knowledge of himself among the nations of the earth, preparatory 
to the coming of Messiah; but we have no room to enlarge. 

There is, we think, a large class of slaveholders in this country fitly repre- 
sented by the above example because similar motives influence them. It is not 
material how they come into possession of their slaves, whether by purchase or 
inheritance, if their conduct towards their slaves is dictated by a sense of 
humanity, Ymdness, and a desire to promote their social and moral improvement; 
though they may not be influenced by those higher motives which influence the 
Christian, still, so far from regarding them as sustaining a sinful relation to their 
slaves, we can but believe, and shall attempt to show, that God is using them as 
his instruments, to accomplish his gracious designs in regard to benighted Africa. 
The slaves of such owners will rapidly improve in civilization and the arts, and 
in despite of the opposing influences will soon acquire all the requisites for self- 
government; and the further important objects contemplated in the Divine mind 
concerning them, must ultimately follow, of which we shall say more in its 
place. 

The third class of purchasers were Christians, who did not only feel all the 
sympathy and generous philanthropy which influenced the second c/ass, but look- 



18 

\ny beyond their temporal condition, miserable as that was, contemplated them 
as beino; without God and without hope iu the world, and sinking down to the 
death that never dies; and in addition to, and above, the impulses of philanthropy, 
their spirits were stirred within them for ihe salvation of their soids as well as 
their bodies; they therefore resolved to buy to the uttermost of their means. — 
They aim now, not merely to promote their temporal happiness — their intellectual 
and moral improvement, but especially to instruct them into the knowledge of 
salvation by Christ Jesus. This is their chief concern, and for its accomplish- 
ment they are found daily at a throne of grace. But they do not stop here; 
they aim. at more than the salvation of their slaves, Tiie millions of their be- 
nii'hted kindred in Africa, press heavily upon their hearts, and they hope the 
day will come, when they can send their enlightened and christianized slaves, 
as'Christ's freemen, to their Father Land, to teach their kindred the way of life 
and salvation; and to these great objects their energies and prayers are directed. 
Now in our judgement such a case presents one of the highest exhibitions of 
pure Christian benevolence the world ever saw. Such a benevolence as we have 
no example of in either the Abrahamic or Mosaic history, and is only exempli- 
fied, in the scriptures, in Paul's letter to Philemon. Now we affirm from our 
personal knowledge, that there are many, and we believe many thousands, of 
slaveholders in the South, who, though (hey never purchased a slave in Africa, 
are atlected precisely, in reference to their slaves, as in the example above given; 
and who hope for the time when the slaves in this country shall be so advanced 
in the arts, in science and religion, as to be perfectly capable of self-government 
— assured thatwke?i that is the case they will be useless as slaves, that their owners 
will cheerfully surrender them to be transplanted by the Government to their father, 
land, for membership in the great Jjfrican Republic. 



NO. V. 

We hope that the analysis of the slavery of this country, in our last number, was 
sufficiently explicit to be understood by our readers, and that so far as the effect of 
American slavery upon the relative condition of the slave, before and after his en- 
slavement, is concerned, that it was quite apparent that, in that particular at least, 
there was nothing necessarily in American slavery to make it less moral than the 
slavery which we have shown to be recognized in the covenant with Abraham, in 
the Mosaic law, and in the second table of the Decalogue. 

We moreover think that so far as the motive in the action is concerned, we made it 
appear that so far as that class of slave-holders are concerned, whose motives and 
conduct, in reference to their slaves, are assimilated to those in the first example 
which we gave, that they can in no sense whatever appeal to the example in the 
vScripturcs for justiGcation or defence. That they have contracted guilt by their re- 
lations as masters, and thai their whole course of conduct, influenced by such mo- 
ivcs, is perpetualy aggravating the guilt contracted. 

While we admit, however, that the above is too true of a large class of slavehol- 
ders in this country, we think that we have clearly shown that there is another 
class of slave-holders, as in the second example which we gave, whose motives seem 
to be as perfectly coincident with the requirements of the second table of the law, as 
we can pos-ibly imagine the motives which actuated either Abraham or Moses to 
have been; and whom we claim to be as sinless in the relation they sustain to their 
slaves, as were those who held slaves, either under the Abrahamic covenant or the 
Mosaic law— except a law can be found for those which will not apply to these — 
which wc shall ahow, in its place, cannot be done. 



Wc have shown a third class, also, of modem slaveholders, who scorn to be in- 
fluenced by motives of still more elevated charaeter than a mere nesrative c nformi- 
ty to the, moral re<iuirement of the law. They aim not merely to promote the tem- 
poral welfare of their slaves, but also their eternal salvation, and through them the 
salvation of their countrynK'ii. These, therefore, we suppose to be, not merely un- 
ofFonding, as masters, but e-pecially approved as christians, being influenced by the 
spirit of the Gospel, to make sacrifices and perform services which the second talle 
of the law does not require. 

We are inclined to think that there is an error somowhat prevalent, and not a lit- 
tle subversive of the truth, which we had just as well attempt to correct here as any 
where else. It consists in the assumption that the moral law requires all that the 
spirit of the Gospel can possibly incite to the performance of; and the deduction 
from this assumption is, that they who come short of performincj all the services, 
and making all the sacrifices which the most ardent zeal, enlarged benevolence and 
elevated faith of the christian would prompt him to do, is a* moral delinquent. Now 
although this is so evidently a mistake as that the bare statement of it would be 
sufticient for its refutation, still it may be necessary that we should do no more than 
merely pronounce it an error. A very few reasons and illustrations, however, will, 
we think, settle the question. 

The erroneousness of the above assumption will appear, from contemplating the 
nature of the law itself; for the very nature and intention of the law, as a rule of 
moral action, is to require no more of the subject of it than is sufficient to avoid the 
penalty. It requires no acts of extra merit. Its entire requisitions are falfilled, by 
merely avoiding the penalty. The law, in its restrictive recjuirements, did not, and 
could not contemplate that class of moral actions which are induced by a grateful 
sense of the unmerited pardon of sins. It is impossible to conceive how the law could 
require such acts of one who had violated its precepts, except m answer to the pen- 
alty incurred, and this would be to dispense with the necessity of the atonement of 
Christ. We have not room to enlarge here upon this momentously interesting sub- 
ject. Our object is to show that the love of Christ shed ebroad in the heart of a 
renewed, repentant and pardoned sinner, prompts to deeds of benevolence, per- 
sonal toils and sacrifices which the law as a rule of moral right and wrong does not 
require, and that while the performance of such acts, as christian duties and privil- 
eges, entitles the performer to no essential or saving merit, (which they would 
certainly do, if required by the law of transgressors,) still that they may be omitted 
without the contraction of guilt. A few examples, by way of illustration, will show- 
more definitely our meaning, and we must there leave the subject for the present. 

The law, for instance, does not require that a man should leave his father, moth- 
er, house and lands, &c., for the kingdom of God's sake, as a comphance with any 
of its precepts; but such an action, prompted by love and obedience to Christ, is an 
eminent trait in the christian, and is encouraged by special promises. 

The law did not require that the poor widow should have thrown her whole living 
into the treasury, nor would she have incurred guilt if she had not done so; but hav- 
ing done so she gave evidence of her great devotion, and has secured the special 
approbation of Him who witnessed it. 

The law did not require the woman to anoint the Saviour's head with the oinment 
of spikenard, nor to wash His fet^t with tears, and to wipe them with the hairs of her 
head; nor would she have contracted any more guilt by omitting it than John and 
others did ; but the deed was prompted by that love for the Redeemer which is found 
only in a penitent sinner's heart — she did it against His burial — and her Lord be- 
queathed her the honor, not only of his approbation, but, that she should have her 
deed mentioned in honor of her wherever the Gospel should be preached, in all 
lands, through all time to come. 

Multiplied other examples could be given, but these may suffice to show that a 
man may not incur moral guilt, even though he should come short of performing 
some of the higher and more distinguished acts of eminent christian*. Hence we 



20 

liave assumed tliat the christian master, whose love to God and the souls of men 
prompt him to a course of action in reference to his slaves, which taxes his time, 
iiis personal labor and his estate, for their earthly happiness and eternal salvation, 
as in the third example given above, does not only avoid the contraction of moral 
iruilt. but performs a high and praiseworthy act of christian benevolence, of which 
we shall have more to say hereafter. 

Having examined the moiive of a moral action, we come now to enquire into the 
aci. Forwliatever may be the character of the motive, if the act performed is in 
violation of law, or is not authorized by the law, then is the action morally wrong. 

Those who maintain that the holding of a slave is, in itself, a sinful act, deny, not 
only that it is either authorised or tolerated by the moral law, but that it is, at least 
impliedly, forbidden. This objection, we think, we have fully met and refuted; and 
therefore submitting what we have said to the judgment and conscience of our read- 
ers, we pass on to examine the argument based upon the assumption that God may, 
and has, enacted special laws, in contravention of His universal moral code; and 
therefore; though a special law may be purely moral in its nature, it cannot be re- 
garded as expository of the Decalogue, nor as authorising the act provided for in 
the special law, by any but those to whom that special law was given. We think 
that the nature of those special laws, referred to, is not generally understood, and 
that material and dangerous mistakes are made by many who undertake to show 
their incompatibility with the great moral code given for the universal government 
of men. 

Those who affirm that slavery is sin per see, are driven to the necessity of assuming 
the ci-round that all special laws are extra of the Decalogue, not authorised by it, and 
in no way expound its import; because such are the clear and unequivocal proofs 
that the Mosaic law recognised and provided for the institution of slavery among 
the Israelites, that they would be compelled.to abandon their ground, unless they 
could, in some way, invalidate this provision of the Mosaic law, as a Divine exposi- 
tion of the Decalogue. To do this, they have assumed that, because some special 
enactments of God are extra of the Decalogue — that is, are not directly recognised 
by that code — that therefore all special laws are extra of the moral code, and in no 
way expound its import, or warrant the performance of the acts provided for by 
those special laws. Hence they deduce, that as some of the provisions of the Mo- 
saic law were especially applicable to Israel, the whole law was of a special nature, 
and therefore none of its provisions are of a general application. Now we wish to 
show that this method of expounding moral law is essentially and dangerously erro- 
neous. 

In the first place, this mode of construing special laws, assumes that the Decalo- 
o-ue, as a universal code of morals, is imperfect, and does not provide for all the rela- 
lations which subsist between God and His creatures, and between man and man ; 
and that therefore God has found it necessary to provide special laws for special 
cases of moral necessity ; Avhich is an absurdity so manifest as to require no argu- 
ment to prove it so. 

In the .second place, this mode of interpretation assumes, not only that, the moral code 
is imperfect, but, that God can consistently with Himself and the code of His moral 
government, enact special laws, of a purely moral nature, not only extra of the 
moral code itself, but incontraventio7i of it; and that therefore it would be sinful in 
any one beside those to whom the special law was given, to perform the moral ac- 
tion therein prescribed. 

The idea that God can, consistently with Himself and the nature of His moral 
government, enact special laws of a purely moral nature, extra of and in opposition 
to His universal moral code, so directly impeaches the Divine purity and the perfec- 
tion of His moral government, that we shall not waste time in attempting to show 
its falacy further than the mere statement of the hypothesis, as above made. 

In order to lay before our readers, in as brief a manner as possible, the only just 
and consistent method of construing those special laws, referred to, we lay down the 



21 

following- rules, for expoundiiijij them. In the first place, we maintain that the Peca- 
\oguoconta\ns a perfect system of moral /«?<% to whirh nothing can be essentially, 
added; and in opposition to which, God cannot, consis tently -with His moral gov- 
ernment or llis own nature, institute any law, ^ther special or general. 

Secoufll!/, thai all sp^-cial laws must accord perfectly with the great universal 
moral code, because it is impossible for God to establish antagonistic j)rinciples in 
His system of moral government. 

Thirdly, that that class of special laws which may be considered cytra of the 
Decalogue, that is, not naturally proceeding from it or embraced in its provisions, 
such as the laws of the ceremonial .service, of the Priesthood, of circumrision, <kc.. 
and those which relate specially to persons under divine appointment, as to Moses, 
the Prophets, <fec., though either ceremonial or official and not strictly of a moral 
nature, are nevertheless in harmony with the Decalogue and not antagonistic to it. 
But that all special laws, strlcilij. of a moral nature, are necessarily based upon the 
Decalogue, and are to be understood as expositions or elaborations of its precepts. 
An action, in itself, morally wa-ong, as dclined by' the Decalogue, cannot be made 
morally right by special law, and ijice versa. All actions therefore of a purely mor- 
al nature, that is, such actions as are to be judged of by the moral law, which' are 
authorised and sanctioned by special law, mu.st of necessity be in conformity to the 
moral law, and therefore sanctiond by it. If a special law could be instituted, which 
would authorise a moral action in contravention of the moral law, then might the 
Infidel reason with propriety that the moral government of the world was founded 
on caprice and not on principle; and the strange and anomalous fact would be present 
ed to the moral Universe, of Gods having by special law, authori-sed the violation of 
His moral government. Such a special law, therefore, never existed. 

If the foregoing reasons be founded in truth and the moral fitness of things, it 
necessaril)'- follows that while the moral law is the only rule by which a moral action 
is to be abjudicated upon and its merit or demerit determined, still that no action can be 
judicially tested by that law which is not recognised in its preceptive requirements. 
If these conclusions be justly and fiiirly drawn from the premises laid down, then 
it will further follow ; first, that if .slaveholding be an action coming within the judi- 
cial cognisance of the moral law, it must be because it is recognised in its preceptive 
requirements. And, secondly, if it is admitted, as it must be, that the Mosaic law, 
as a special law, has authorised the relation of master and slave, it follows from what 
we have demonstrated to be the nature of special law, involving moral action, that 
slavery cannot be sin j^er sec. 

Thus have we shown, that slavery as a social, or civil institution was incorporated 
in the Abrahamic Covenant, recognised in the Decalogue, -and established as a civil 
or social institution in Israel by the law of Moses. We have also further shown, 
that if it be admitted that slavery was sanctioned by the law of Moses, admitting it 
to be a special law, still as a law involving mornl action, it is proven to be an emanation 
of the Decalogue, and therefore the act which is sanctioned by this special law is 
of course sanctioned by the moral code itself. 

Thus have we shown that the abstract act of either buying or holding a slave is 
authorised by moral law, and therefore cannot be sin. 

The next thing is for us to inquire into the effects of the slavery of this coimtry, 
both present and prospective; and then we shall be able to decide with greater safe- 
ty wdiat its moral results will be to the several varieties, or class of persons and in- 
terests involved in it. And al.«o what is the proper course to be pursued, under the 
circumsthnces, on the part of the Government, of christians and philanthropists, in 
reference to the African race in this country. 

In order that we may arrive at just conclusions in regard to the elTects of slavery in 
this country, we must consider its effects upon the two races, the white and the black, 
seperate and apart from each other. 

So far from considering African slavery as essential to the happiness and prosperi- 
ty of the white population of this country, we have always regarded them as being 
( 



22 

: linly the the injured parly by its introduction and perpetuity. It may have con- 
. ibiiicd in settling and developing the productive capabilities of those portions of the 
^onih whose climatic and local peculiiriiies rendered them less favorable to the healtli 
i whitethanto black emigrants; i;hdl^e wialth of many individuals may have resulted 
iium slave labor: but these and all other advantages, in our opinion, have been 
more than -overbalanced, by the peculiar character of the system of slavery in this 
oouniry, and the pernicious influence which it has exerted upon the moral and social 
interests of many in the country. 

Slavery in this country, as defined by a certain class of laws, and as carried out 
in the practice o( thou-^ands of slaveholders, is not the slavery of the Bible and can- 
not be defended by an appeal to its laws or examples, as we have briefly stated in 
unother pliu-e. That kind of slavery which makes no provision for the improvement 
and moral training of the slave, which disregards the marriage relation and the 
liJommon laws of haraanity and justice, is a perversion of slavery, and has no more 
aflinity J;o the slavery of the Scriptures than socialism or concubinage has fo the 
marriao^e relation as recognised by the law of God. Such a system of slavery 
may justly be denounced as sinful and only sinjul; and we doubt not that thous- 
ands are heaping to themselves wrath against the day of wrath, by such a system 
of slavoholding. But we no more condemn slavery in the abstract, because wicked 
men have ihus perverted and abused it than we condemn the marriage relation, be- 
cause wicked men have contemned and violated its solemn and holy obligations. — 
As we have elsewhere said, we feel confident that there are multiplied thousands of 
slaveholders in this country, who hold their slaves in the fear of God, and whose 
conduct in relation to them is regulated by the law of Christ, remembering thfit they 
have a master in Heaven, to whom they must render an account. Thousands make 
sacrifices and sustain discomforts for the good of their slaves as purely disinterested 
as any act of Christian benevolence can be, and certainly to as great an amount as 
in any other department of benevoleni effort. Hence the injustice and the impiety 
of the sweeping condemnation of Southern slaveholders by the Abolitionists of the 
North. 

While therefore we are constrained, from the testimony of the Bible, to believe 
'liat slavery as therein warranted and provided for was benevolently provided for the 
benefit of the poor, still in consequence of the extensive perversion, of it in this 
country, and its consequent evil influences upon the moral and social interests of the 
white populaton, we can but regard it as, at this time, a social and political evil 
which calls for appropriate remedies and correctives, of which we shall speak hereafter. 
We now pass on to enquire into its efi"ects upon the African race, and in order to 
do this we must contrast the condition of the native Africans, both at the time that 
slavery was introduced into this country and at the present time, with the present 
and prospective condition of the African race in tliis country. Of their condition in 
Africa, socially, civilly and morally, we have heretofore spoken, and as we aim to 
be as concise as possible, we beg the reader to refer to what we there said and to con- 
trast their condition, as there described, with what, from his own observation, he would 
•'Steem the condition of the blacks, as a whole, in this country, to be at the present 
time; and notwithstanding the cruelty and injustice which has been practised to- 
wards them, in too many instances, both in the slave and free States, siill every hon- 
est and candid man must, unhesitatingly, admit, to say nothing of the future, that 
their condition has been vastly improved by being brought as slaves to this country. 
They are in a great measure civilized. They have acquired an extensive practical 
knowledge of agriculture and the mechanical arts; and many of them have made 
considerable advances in literary and scientific acquirements. Besides all this, and 
still betur, many thousands of them have become joyfully and savingly interested 
in the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Compared with the natives of Africa, the 
.\fricans in this country are a civilised and christianised people; and are rapidly ap- 
proaching thatstate of intellectual improvement and moral refinement which will fit 
them for self-government and national i7ulepe?idence. 



23 

But \vc must not limit our estimates of the effects of American slavery to what 
has been developed in reference to the African race in this cimntry, either in, the past 
or the present. We have suflicient data, we think, upon which tt» fyund calculations 
for the future, and to hope for and expect resulLs, in favor of that race, both to those 
in this country and in Alrica, still more beneficial and universal tlian have as yet 
appeared. We hope — a/i, we fjclievc, ihai CioA is preparing, by means of African 
slavery in this country, u na'ion of civilist'd and chrisli;mi~ed men and women, to 
^ be transplanted to Africii, by whom to redeem that land from barbarism, anarchy and 
blood, and to shed upon il the flight and the blessedness of the {glorious Gospel of 
Christ. To us this is a subject of so much interest that we are desirous to pn;sent 
our views upon it in as connected a form as possible, and as this number is already 
as long as it should be, we shall defer what we have to say further upon this subject 
to our next. 



NO. VI. ^ 

, We have assumed the position, as one of the benefits resulting to the African 
race from the institution of slavery in this country, that God was thereby preparing 
a nation of enliglitened and chriUtanised Africans for independence and self-govern- 
ment in their oion country. Some of our reasons for entertaining this opinion we 
wish now to state. 

However repugnant the opinion abovo expressed may be to those who entertain 
ultra abolition views, we doubt not there are thousands w^ho accord in the senti- 
ments, who nevertheless regard slavery as a moral evil; because they hold, as we 
do, that God overrules evil for good. But as we have, as we think, clearly shown 
that slavery in the abstract is not a moral evil, we can but think that it is perfectly 
compatible with the purity and benevolence of God that from the beginning he 
should have ''intended it for good,'"' notwithstanding wicked men may. have origin- 
ated it and '-intended it for evil;" and in support of this hypothesis, we might refer 
to a number of analogous cases in the scriptures, but we shall detain the reader to 
display the analogy in a single case only, and then pass on. 

The case Ave allude to is the bondage of Israel. in Fgypt. Of this event God ap- 
prised Abrahim long before it came to pass. That God intended it should be so 
for the special purpose of preserving the seed of Abraham from being destroyed by 
the Canaanites, while they were too few and feeble to defend themselves, no one 
who has read the scriptures Avith attention can possibly doubt; and yet mark the 
manner by which it is brought about. Josepk is taken by wicked hands and sold 
as a slave into Egypt. His brethren intended it for evil but God intended it for 
GOOD. Men may a-unie to be Avise above Avhat is written, and curl the lip and 
scoAvl contempt upon the idea that God can be the author of slavery ; but his dec- 
laration of the fact to Abraham, his intimating to Joseph, in dreams, his future 
destiny, the special direction Avhich'he gave to all the events of his life, and his 
tinaliy raising him to the highest honors in Egypt, furnish indubitable evidence 
that Joseph spoke by inspiration when he said to his brethren that though they 
intended the act of selling him into slavery for evd, God ime.\ded that very act 
for good. See also what God said to Jacob, Gen. 46 oh: 3d and llh verses. 

The idea that all the terrible judgments which were indicted upon Pharaoh 
and his people, Avere intended as chastisements for having kept Israel in bond- 
age, we think is wholly erroneous. We doubt not tint God intended these 
judgments, in part, as chastisements upon Egypt for '"oppressing" his people; 
that is, making unreasonable exactions upon them and abusing their power over 
them; but the particular reason \vhy God "raised up" Pharaoh to the throne of 
Egypt was, we apprehend, to show forth his power in him, and thereby to con- 



24 

firm the faith of Moses and the children of Israel in hiir as their God, and of 
his intention to deliver and protect them. Had Pharaoh let the children of Is- 
rael go upon tlii; first application of Moses, we have no reason to believe that 
any punishment would have fallen u,.on him or his people for their past conduct 
to Israel; but God ''hardened his heart" that he might show forth his power in 
him. that thereby his people might be assured that he intended to bless them. 

Without stopping to defend the facts and inspired declarations, recorded in 
the history of the foregoing case, from the cavil of men who are.determened 
not to believe what God has ordered to record concerning his own acts, we give 
it as our deliberate opinion that he who denies that the slavery of Joseph was 
hy Divine appointment, because the act on the part of his brethren was a wick- 
ed one, cannot believe that the Son of God died by Divine ap-p ointment^ because 
Judas, being "a devil" from the beginning, wickedly betrayed him; and the 
Jews witli wicked hands took him and crucified him. 

Now the points of analogy in the case above referred to, and the slavery of 
this country are these. Admitting that the slavery of this country was brought 
about by wicked men, influenced by wicked motives; even so was the slavery of 
Joseph, and the consequent slavery of the children of Israel in Egypt. But we 
have seen that God intended the elavery of Joseph and of the seed of Abraham 
for their special good; and if God could consistently appoint slavery in the one 
case for such purposes of good, so he could consistently appoint it in the other; 
as we believe he nas. 

In the next place we find that the severity of the service of the children of 
Israel, was just as necessary to secure their consent to leave the land of Gosh- 
en for the promised land, as were the judgments which befell Pharaoh necessa- 
ry to gain his consent to let them go: just so, we see, that if the blacks in this 
country had any hopes of being placed upon an equality with the whites, they 
never could be induced to go to Liberia, but as God intends them to return to 
their native country /or goo(Z, he is providentially increasing the difficulties to 
their equality with the whites in this. 

As the miracles which God wrought in Egypt were not only manifestative of 
the good he intended to the Israelites, by their slavery in Egypt, but also pledges 
of his intention to put them in possession of the promised inheritance; so we 
think that the remarkable providence by which the colony of Liheria has been 
founded and rapidly advanced to a Republic; and the rapid improvement of the 
Africac race in this country, and the increasing zeal of Southern Christians, 
notwithstanding the embarrassments thrown in their way by the abolitionists of 
the North, to instruct and enlighten the slaves of the country, are providential 
manifestations as distinctly indicating the Divine intention to restore them to 
Africa, as soon as they are capable of self-government^ as did the wonders wrought 
in Egypt indicate his intention to put Israel in the possession of the land of 
promise. 

As those who favored and labored to promote the Divine intention, with re- 
gard to Israel, were blessed and approved of God, and those who resisted his 
will, in this regard, were chastened with judgment, so, we have reason to ap- 
prehend, it will be in regard to the slavery of this country. If our deductions 
are logically drawn from the facts recorded in the Bible and the evident indica- 
tions of God's providence, in regard to the slavery in this country, then should 
every one be interested to determine for himself what duty requires he should 
do in the present case, lest haply he should be found fighting against God. 

Let our readers recur now to what we said upon the subject of civil Institu- 
tions and (Governments, and iheir adaption to the various conditions and cir- 
cumstances of human society, and they will perceive tliat we have there ex- 
pressed it as our opinion that, while (Jod has sanctioned and approved of differ- 
ent forms of Government, as best adapted, under the circumstances, to promote 



25 

the moral and social improvement and happiness of tlie people, that he has 
manifested a decided preference for a Democratic form of government — A Gov- 
ernment OF Fathers. And that God has indicated tiiat it is his pleasure and 
purpose that there shall be a progressive tendency from the more imperfect to 
the more perfect forms of government, in the exact ratio that the mass of the 
people are advanced in intellectual and moral culture. 

Let any man turn his attention to the study of this subject and he will find 
that in all ages and countries, there has been a tendency in governments to 
change from absolute despotisms to monarchies more or less limited and thence 
to Democracies, in the xact proportion to the moral and intellectual improve- 
ment of rhe people. If this fact be admitted, and it be admitted, as we have 
stated, that God approves of that form of government, and of that only, which 
under the circumstances is best calculated to promote the happiness and good 
of the people, then it will follow that the forms of government must so change 
in order to secure the Divine approbation, as to be most perfectly adapted to 
the intellectual and moral capabilities of the people. So irresistable is this 
principle in the moral constitution of human society that, as we stated in our 
second number. Kings and Rulers in all ages of the world have been compelled 
to conform to it, and to partition out the powers of government among the peo- 
ple in the exact proportion of their ability to exercise it. 

Recognising slavery as a constituent of national organization, or a form of 
civil society, we hold that it is governed by the same law, to which we have re- 
ferred above, as so efTectually controling and determining the modes of action 
in other forms of human government. Hence while it is true that the intellec- 
tual improvement of a slave improves his capabilities to be useful to his master, 
it is no less true that he deteriorates in value, just in the ratio that, beyond a 
certain point, he advances in mental culture and moral worth. The above asser- 
tion is proven to be true by the experience of all masters, and hence the origin 
of those laws which are intended to inhibit the teaching of slaves to read and 
write. But the reason of this fact is not confined to the mere circumstance that 
the educated slave knows better than the uneducated how to escape from ser- 
vitude; this is true, but it is a truth of minor consequence. There is a princi- 
ple in this law of human society, upon which we have been descanting, incom- 
parably more powerful and operative than the sordid one recognised by the in- 
hibitive laws referred to; and it is to this feature of that law that we wish to 
call the special attention of our readers, Solomon says: ''lie that delicately 
bringeth up his servant from a child shall have him become his son at the 
length." Now the foregoing declaration of the, wise man involves the senti- 
ment to which we refer. No man can treat his equal, much less his superior, 
in intellectual and moral endowments, as a mere servitor. As the slave, there- 
fore, advances in mental and moral culture, he approaches to equality with his 
master, This claim the master, insensibly to himself and perforce of that prin- 
ciple in the laws of human society to which we refer, is hound to recognise, he 
cannot avoid it. He cannot resist the natural claims to respect which are set 
up in the behalf of a highly cultivated and enlightened mind; and he is a beast 
and no man, who could treat a slave thus mentally and morally elevated, as a 
mere menial. Hence slaves become less valuable, as they advance in mental 
improvement, beyond what is simply necessary to qualify them for the labor 
assigned them. 

No observing individual can have overlooked the fact, that there has been a 
remarkable change wrought in the intellectual condition of the slaves of the 
South within the last thirty years, those inhibitive laws notwithstanding. We 
should, perhaps, be perfectly safe in saying that where there was one slave thirty 
years ago that could read there are scores; and it cannot be overlooked that in 
proportion as they have advanced in intellectual improvement, has society at 



26 

laroe accorded to them privileges and immunities, formerly unknown The 
cause of" this great change, in our opinion, is mainly to be ascribed to the in- 
crease of active christian benevolence, which has been in operation in this 
country since the rise of modern missions. But to whatever cause the preju- 
dice of individuals may ascribe it, the fact cannot be denied. .Now if our the- 
ory of human government and organized society be founded in true philosophy 
and is in accoidance with revealed truth; and if the fact above staled, in re- 
gard to the improved and improving condition of the slaves and its consequent 
eflects upon the whites, be admitted, then have we grounds to assume that the 
following positions hare been clearly made out: First, that the facts referred 
to, concerning the improved and improving condition of the slaves, and the 
growing sympathy and increasing benevolent efforts of the whites in theif be- 
lialf, are piovideniial developments of the Divine will and pleasure concerning 
slavery in this country; indicating clearly that its removal is to be efiected, not 
forcibly, as by military or staiutary power, but, by such benevolent or philanthrop- 
ic appliances as are best calculated, not only to remove the causes which led to their 
tnslavemevt. but which are also best calculated to elevate them in morals and intelli- 
gence, and Jit them for self government. 

Secondly, that Mercy and Justice, alike remonstrate against any measures to 
emancipate that portion of the slave population who are disqualified to take care 
of and provide for themselves. But that the true policy to be pursued is, to 
follow the leadings of Divine Providence, by properly directing our philan- 
thropic and benevolent efforts to the intellectual and moral improvement of the 
slaves, and thus to qualify them for self-government and the enjoyment cf liber- 
ty, before they are thrown upon their own resources. 

Thirdly, that, slavery being an organic constituen of the government, it is 
clearly understood, according to our view of the subject, that so soop as slaves 
are thus qualified for self-protection and self-control, it is incUxMBExNT upon the 
Government, and not the ijidiindual owner, to provide for their liberation and 
settlement. The Government has authorized and established the relation be- 
tween masters and slaves, and, therefore, we hold that it is bound in justice to 
the citizen slaveholders, if mercy or justice requires the liberation of the slaves, 
to recompense the owner for them; and if there is any constitutional impediment 
in the way of such provisions of Fovernment, such impediments should be imme- 
diately removed; and measures adopted for ihe gradual emancipation of all such 
slaves as are prepared for freedom, by paying to the owner, in Government 
lands, or some other way, a reasonable compensation for his slave, to be suitably 
provided for and sent to Liberi.a. The landed resources of the Government 
are more than sufficient to accomplish all this, and then have more than enough 
left for all the emigrants which may land upon our shores for the next fifty years. 

We have thus given, as briefly as we could to be intellibible, our views of sla- 
very as a general question, and we now propose m a very brief way, to give our 
view of the subject as it is now presented and agitated in this State. 

We are opposed to any interference with or alteration of the provisions of the 
present constitution upon that subject; because, it being a compromise measure, 
between the slavery and anti-slavery parties in this State at the time the consti- 
tution was adopted, when the subject was less imbittered by the influence of 
ultraism than it is now, we have no idea that it will be improved by any attempt 
to change it. 

Besides we do not believe that it can be improved, because we do not only 
think its provisions perfectly liberal but perfectly ^m5^ It, in the first place, 
inhibits the Legislature from passsing any law which shall in any way deprive a 
slaveholder of the right to emancipate his slave or slaves just when he pleases; 
so that no slaveholder is forced to retain his slaves, even for a day, in violation 
of his conscience. 



27 

In the second place, it empowers the Legislaluaes, al any time, to emancipate 
every slave lathe Stale, hy pa i/i at/ lo the oicncr or owners a reasonable compcnsaiion 
for them. And this provision we conceive to be just, and no more than ju.st; for 
if slavery is a political evil, it is but just and fair that the poliiical compact, and 
not the individual should bear the price of its removal. JJy this provision then, 
slavery may be removed from Kentucky at any time ihe people wish it, upon 
principles of equity and justice; and we therefore think that the consiiiuiion can- 
not be improved on the subject of slavery; but if the attempt is made it may be 
greatly impaired. 

We are opposed to the present movement upon the subject of slavery, in this 
State, not merely because we think the present constilutional provision in regard 
to it the best that c\n bj made; but because we have seen no plan of emancipa- 
tion suggested, that is not in our judgement, fraught with manifest injustice both 
to the slaveholder aud the slave; and our reasons for this opinion are the fol- 
lowing: 

In regard to the slaveholder: No plan has been, as yet, suggested, for remu- 
nerating, the slaveholder for the loss of the estate which he holds in his slave 
property; but they all propose to take from him without recompense, all his estate 
HI slaves by force of arbitrary law, which estate he has either ecquired by his 
industry, under the encouragement and provisions of the laws of the land, or 
inherited, without'his privity, by its operations. Now, we look upon this as so 
obviously unjust, that we cannot give it our sanction or co operation. We 
maintain that as slavery has been introduced and established by the authority of gov- 
ernment, it should also sustain all the expsnse of its removal; and upon the plan 
we have suggested above. Let this plan be adopted and nine-tenths of the South 
will concur in it. * 

In regard to the slave: We have shown above, that slavery has been less bene- 
ficial to the whites than to the blacks, in this country; and we are sustained in 
this opinion, by all the plans of emancipation hitherto suggested, and by all the 
reasons which have been offered in support of them. The plans for emancipa- 
tion, now before the people of this State, are merely measzires of policy, to rid the 
State of slavery for the benefit of the xchitcs; and the poor blacks are left, whether 
freed or in bondage, to bear all the pernicious effects of such systems of eman- 
cipation. 

We have not room here to enter extensively into an analytical investigation 
of the several plans suggested, and to expose to the full all the injustice and 
cruelty which would be inflicted upon the slaves, were they adopted; our readers 
must therefore put up with a mere reference to the more prominent absurdities 
in the plans referred to, hoping that they will thereby be induced to examine 
them themselves in detail. 

Some of those plans are, intentionally, so constructed, that the slaveholder 
may have it in his power to remove his slaves out of the State before the law can 
possibly affect his ownership in them. Now, no one need be told that such a 
system of emancipation is a lie-bell upon the import of the term; and so far from 
being dictated by feelings of benevolence for the slave, it is a deliberate scheme 
of the most unhallowed selfishness, to secure the interest and profit of the whites, 
by an an act as deliberately cruel to the blacks. The operation of such a 
system would be, to rid Kentucky of its slave population, by transplanting them 
to cotton and sugar farms in the South — owned by Kentucky masters and doom- 
to perpetual slavery. This would be emancipation with a vengeance. But we 
have seen no scheme as yet which provides against such a result. All of them 
seem to be studiously arranged so as to save the State from the expense of re- 
moving slavery, and yet, to gain the co-operation of slaveholders, they are so 
constructed, that the slaveholder may avoid a loss, by removing his slaves. All 
the facts and arguments in support of these plans, are intended to exhibit the 



28 

advantages which the whites are to derive from them; but no provision is made 
for the benefit of the blacks, and no impassioned speeches in their belialf. We 
can feel nothing less than sovereign contempt for such falsely styled benevolence. 

Tiie readers of the Banner all know that we have, from the beginning, been an 
advocate for tiie colonization sciieme, and it might be supposed that we would 
of course approve of those schemes of gradual emancipation which contemplate 
the removal of the liberated slaves to Liberia; but we are under the necessity of 
saying that we do not. and for the following reasons: 

First — Because in all of them, the slave is proposed to be liberated at the 
expense of the owner, alone; which we regard as most glaringly unjust. 

Secorid/y — Because no provision is made by i;overnment to remove the libera- 
ted slaves from the country, but the country is to be infested with multitudes of 
lawless and irresponsible hirelings for a half a century to come. Besides all this 
the blacks are made slaves to the State, instead of individual owners, and required 
to labor for that which the government ought to supply; another act of injustice. 

Thirdly — No provision is made to qualify these liberated slaves, either men- 
tally or morally, to exercise the right of self-government. They are to be taken, 
promiscuously, with all their ignorance, improvidence and lawlessness, and ship, 
ped off with six months provisions to Liberia. Let any reflecting mind contem- 
plate the scene which would be exhibited in Liberia after the landing of the 
lirf^t importation of our thousands oi liberated, ignorant slaves, and it can no 
longer doubt of the cruelty and impolicy of such a measure. Even our own 
beloved and wisely founded Republic, with twenty millions of freemen to sustain 
it, a few years ago trembled to its very foundations at the tread of a few thou- 
sands of ignorant foreigners upon our shores; and who does not see that the 
very first importation of such a horde of lawless and igjorant creatures, as either 
of the proposed plans would send to Liberia, would at once crush the young 
Republic into ruin, blight all our cherished hopes of its successful agency in 
the enlightenment and salvation of Africa, and roll back upon it all its primitive 
anarchy, darkness and moral death'? Verily, we are at war vi'ith all such heart- 
less schemes. If we mean to benefit the slaves, let us do it liberaUi/ and nobly 
— fit them for liberty, and then place them where they can enjoy it. Let ths 
Government adjust itself to the kequirements of the case and perform 
the deed, and all will concur. 

While we recognise the right of the good people of this Commonwealth, to 
discuss the subject of slavery or any other subject that interests them, just when 
they i»lease, still as a citizen, holding interest in common with others, we claim 
the priv ilege of expressing our opinion upon the policy of any measure affecting 
those common interests. We should rejoice if every son and daughter of Africa 
in the United States, being sufficiently enlightened for self-government, was 
amply provided for and removed to Liberia, and would cherfully contribute, 
according to our ability, to bring about so desirable an end; yet we have been, 
and still are opposed to all this movement upon the subject of slavery, at this 
^;>«e, because it has not originated with the citizens of the State, but has been 
foistered upon us by ihe intermeddling of ultra abolitionists of the North, for the 
purpose of gaining strength against the South, by detaching Kentucky from it, 
and adding its influence to the Norih. But the mere fact of Kentucky's becom- 
ing a free State, is not the grounds of our objection to the present movement. — 

It is BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT THE MOVEMENT IS FRAUGHT AVITH THE ELEMENTS 

OF DISUNION. The existence of this Government and the union of the States are 
in more danger from the slavery question at present than from any and all other 
opposing inlluences whatsoever. In our opinion, the salvation of the Union 
depends upon our preserving the present equally divided condition of the antag- 
onistic elements, until the excitement subsides, and reason and brotherhood 
resume their wonted control over the public mind. Let Kentucky and VVginia 



29 

be taken from the South and added to the North, while the North are influenced 
by the spirit they seem to be at present, and, in our opinion, civil war and disu- 
nion are inevitable.- To preserve the country from a catastrophe so inevitably 
destructive of our national existence, and the cause of civil and religious liberty 
throughout the world, we wish no changes to be made in the relative position 
of the iStates, North and South, until the present agitation subsides; then, when 
the national compact v/ill not be endangered by it, if the people of the Slate 
desire it, we shall not object to the discussion of the lubject to any extent. 

Thus have we, in as brief a way as we possibly could, to bo intelligible, given 
our views of the subject of slavery, in the several aspects in which we proposed 
to consider it. The articles have been written, as all our articles are, in the 
press and hurry of our multiplied labors, without even a clerk to help us. While, 
therefore, they express our views of the subject, we are aware that a judi- 
cious revision would improve them both in forcibleness and appearance — but 
we are quite willing to let them pass for what they are worth. 

We may, in a subsequent number, give our views of the proper plan of eman- 
cipation, and of disposing of the Africans in this country. 



Copy Right Secured According to Law. 



,xB«««^ °r ''"'"'-■ 



,^«»M^g99 010 



ERRATUM. 

We sincerely regret that so many typographical errors appear in this pam- 
phlet; it is to be accounted for from the fact that the Foreman of the office was 
attacked with Cholera before the proof was corrected. Many of these errors 
we suffer to pass uncorrected in this errata, because we think the intelligent 
reader will see the error and correct it as he reads. The following, however, 
we deem it necessary to correct: 

Introductory, 12th line from the top, read equitable (or "equitabel." 
1st page, 23 lines from the top, read preserve, for "observe." 
" '' merged, for "urged." 
" " stamped, for "stapmed" 
" " legibly, for "Igibly." 
" *' perceptions, for"preceptions." 
' " *' slave, for "slaee." 

" " God for "good." 
' " " authorised, for "authorizpn." 

" " supply the word who after the word "but" 
" " supply the word 2/ after the word "contrast." 
" " read several, for "seveaal." 



6lh " 


17 


(t (1 


25 


7th " 


29 


44 a 


30 


9th " 


' 18 


9th ' 


' 41 


11th • 


' 12 


14th " 


' 21 


l5ih " 


6 


16th " 


' 31 



y^ 



.\bbabv 



OF CO' 



:NGB£SS 



01 



1899 010 9 



